To the ones getting this very noticeable effect on application startup-times with the linker flags: Do you only set your CFLAGS accordingly, or do you also set the LDFLAGS in /etc/make.conf?

Because, if only setting the CFLAGS with the -Wl,... stuff, then how should the linker know about the intended flags? Sure, if compilation and linkage are performed in one run, it works. But what if these actions are seperated, which is the common case? "gcc -c ..." gets called with the CFLAGS, then ld gets called with LDFLAGS (which are unset). Isn't this the way it works?

Well, I got a error while emerging pam. Found this during my search. I put this in make.conf:

Code:

LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,now'

I have AMD rigs. Is that OK? Are these CPU specific?

It did get rid of the error though, for pam. Can I ad something else to make it faster?

What you think?

I'm not a developer, but I'm pretty sure you can ignore that error message (see the reference I posted [1]). And if you read my first post, you'll see that adding "-Wl,-O1" to your LDFLAGS might speed things up.

aethyr,
it seems to me that you could very easily just put a line under the CFLAGS option and it should be passed to gcc. Try it out and let us know if it works. If it does then also let us know if it actually does improve startup times. I have steered clear of prelinking because of all the horror stories I hear on the forum.

I'm not a developer, but I'm pretty sure you can ignore that error message (see the reference I posted [1]). And if you read my first post, you'll see that adding "-Wl,-O1" to your LDFLAGS might speed things up.

Anybody cares to comment on what SpanKY says in bug 70367 (which does make some sense even if the language is on the rude side--although I believe that his changes should not have a significant effect)?

FWIW the LDFLAGS are not architecture specific as far as I understand things (plus that I am using them on PPC with expected results)._________________Quid latine dictum sit altum videtur

It means (if I understand it correctly) "I installed LDFLAGS (flags of LD) on my computer (computing machine) buit now it is american flags and it wants blood for that, and is of course, much faster but now is taking control of Iraq."

Added it to my make.conf and did re-emerged firefox, thunderbird, and the new RC2 of Xfce 4.2 and no problems yet I'll do an emerge -e system|world over winter break and see how it goes.Thanks, aethyr_________________~~ Peter: Brony, GNU/Linux geek, caffeine addict, and Free Software advocate.
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF

For what it's worth, I'm doing a stage 1 chrooted install on another hard drive I have, using ~x86 and these LDFLAGS in my make.conf since before bootstrapping. Not a single problem yet, so far as I can tell. And everything at least *seems* to be snappier. The relevant parts of my make.conf:

For what it's worth, I'm doing a stage 1 chrooted install on another hard drive I have, using ~x86 and these LDFLAGS in my make.conf since before bootstrapping. Not a single problem yet, so far as I can tell. And everything at least *seems* to be snappier. The relevant parts of my make.conf:

I'm on package of 84 of 115 of an `emerge -e world` (glibc) right now. I'll let you know how it goes.

I have been reading that it doesnt benefit small packages so that makes me not want to take the time and do an emerge -e world, but I am for sure going to emerge some of the bigger programs and see how they go. BTW, it was due to your sig that I moved to NPTL and havent looked back. One of the best upgrades I have done, maybe even over moving to GCC 3.4, so thanks